2002 ZAZ Wagon vs. 2013 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2013 Jaguar XJ is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 ZAZ Wagon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 ZAZ Wagon would be higher. At 2,995 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Jaguar XJ (335 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 285 more horse power than 2002 ZAZ Wagon. (50 HP @ 5300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 2002 ZAZ Wagon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 1139 kg more than 2002 ZAZ Wagon. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2013 Jaguar XJ is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2002 ZAZ Wagon. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XJ will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
2002 ZAZ Wagon | 2013 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | ZAZ | Jaguar |
Model | Wagon | XJ |
Year Released | 2002 | 2013 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1091 cc | 2995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | W |
Horse Power | 50 HP | 335 HP |
Engine RPM | 5300 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 72 mm | 84 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 67 mm | 89 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 10.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
Drive Type | Front | AWD |
Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 745 kg | 1884 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3830 mm | 5127 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1570 mm | 2105 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1456 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2330 mm | 3032 mm |